Contents:
Title Cited by Year Visualizing argumentation: International Journal on Digital Libraries 3 3 , , Rationale Management in Software Engineering Eds. Journal of universal computer science 3 8 , , Concepts, techniques, and use , , International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52 6 , , Articles 1—20 Show more.
Knowledge representation with ontologies: Hypermedia Support for Argumentation-Based Rationale: Open University Press , To learn more about how to request items watch this short online video. You can view this on the NLA website. New search User lists Site feedback Ask a librarian Help.
Advanced search Search history. Browse titles authors subjects uniform titles series callnumbers dewey numbers starting from optional. See what's been added to the collection in the current 1 2 3 4 5 6 weeks months years.
Human-agent knowledge cartography for e-science: Assessment in Schools — Dispositions. De Liddo and R. Remember Password Forgot Password? Analyzing the usability of a design rationale notation SB Shum Design rationale:
Cite this Email this Add to favourites Print this page. Catalogue Persistent Identifier https: You must be logged in to Tag Records. Online Table of contents only Broken link?
In the Library Request this item to view in the Library's reading rooms using your library card. Once everybody can see the battlelines drawn out, the need for debate often melts away.
Presumably, the psychological reason for this is shared experience. Everyone knows the arguments, but not everyone visualizes them clearly. If so, consensus is just a visualization away. Part I, Foundations, consists of just two chapters — on the roots of computer-supported argument visualization let us call it CSAV for short by Buckingham Shum, and a cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with CSAV, by Jan van Bruggen and others.
Both discuss the IBIS method which is supported by several tools. It was certainly an AV method although the computer was just pen and paper.
Hypertext, too, was from the start about argumentation, as Vannevar Bush made clear in his famous article As We May Think in Another major root is the philosophy of language of Stephen Toulmin, whose Uses of Argument counters years of excessive Aristotelian logic. Toulmin devised an argument structure involving Datum, Claim, Warrant, Backing, and Rebuttal, all to be arranged graphically — again, clearly an AV format.
This is a gibe at the most famous examples of Artificial Intelligence such as Mycin.
Gellof Kanselaar and others write on designing tools for collaborative learning; Carr writes on teaching legal argumentation; van Gelder on deliberation i. This part of the book inevitably repeats the basic message in various ways, arguing the merits of different approaches toolkits. Kanselaar illustrates the TC3 tool with several diagrams full of Dutch text, structured much like Toulmin; the article argues that education is a process of argumentation, but their analysis showed that people actually used their tool for visual representation, not to trigger discussion or ideas.
It is almost impossible not to believe that computers could do this today; it was very different five decades ago. Engelbart hopes that CSAV tools and methods will themselves improve the pursuit of new tools and processes — a bootstrapping approach.
The situation in which developers are most likely to see or document arguments — if they see any — is in safety engineering, but it seems the CSCW school does not read books or papers about safety, and vice versa. The irony is that — as Sven Birkerts so passionately argues in The Gutenberg Elegies — the rising tide of e-data that washes through our networks actually shortens our attention span so much that we can hardly concentrate on the indepth argument and reflection presented by a book anymore. CSAV may, perhaps, help with argument understanding; but equally, it looks like part of the larger problem.
This is one of those few multi-author books that fits together rather well, and has a clear and important message for everyone involved in complex business and system problems.